# Fist to Five Participants vote simultaneously by holding up zero to five fingers to reveal their level of agreement on a specific proposal. The facilitator tallies the room, hears concerns from low scores, and determines whether the decision passes or needs adjustment. **Time:** 10 minutes. Source indicates 2 to 5 minutes per voting cycle; UWT plans 10 minutes to allow scale orientation, voting, and focused dialogue on low scores. **People:** 4 to 24. Whole room facing a shared display, voting in unison. ## Choose this exercise **Purpose:** Gather an immediate, visible distribution of group agreement on a written proposal without initiating an open debate. **Use it when:** Use when a proposal has already been discussed and the group needs a decisive, transparent pulse check to see if everyone can support moving forward. **Skip it when:** Skip when the group has not yet discussed the underlying topic, when severe power imbalances require private ballots, or when the decision has already been mandated by management. ## Materials and tools - A display showing the proposal and the 0 to 5 scoring scale (flip chart, whiteboard, or shared digital slide) - Notepad and pen for facilitator records ## Before participants arrive 1. Write the single proposal sentence clearly where all participants can read it. 2. Display the 0 to 5 rubric prominently. 3. Arrange chairs in a circle or U-shape so everyone can see each other's hands. ## Say this to open We are testing our readiness to move forward on this written proposal using Fist to Five. A fist means strong opposition, while five fingers means complete enthusiasm. On my count, hold up your hand showing your score simultaneously so no one is influenced by early votes. ## How to run it ### 1. Orient to the scale (2 minutes) Walk through the displayed 0 to 5 scale aloud. State clearly that 3 and above represents acceptable support to move forward, while 0, 1, or 2 means the person cannot support the proposal without changes. Run a quick 10-second practice check on a neutral prompt if the group is new to the method. ### 2. Present the proposal (2 minutes) Read the written proposal verbatim. Give the room 30 seconds of silence to read and consider their position. Invite brief clarifying questions about the wording only; defer debate or suggested amendments. ### 3. Execute the simultaneous vote (1 minutes) Instruct everyone to place one hand ready. Count aloud: 'One, two, three, show.' Ensure all participants reveal their hand at once. Scan the room and announce the distribution aloud, noting the lowest number shown. ### 4. Examine concerns and adjust (4 minutes) If every score is 3 or higher, declare consensus and proceed. If anyone showed 0, 1, or 2, invite them to state what specific modification would move their vote to a 3. Allow up to two brief responses from the group. If a simple wording tweak resolves the concern, record the edit. If disagreement is deep, record that the proposal is blocked and schedule a dedicated working session. ### 5. Record the outcome (1 minutes) Read the final status of the proposal aloud, including any agreed revisions or scheduled next steps. Record the tally and decision in meeting records. ## Debrief questions - What specific change helped or would help move scores of 1 or 2 up to an acceptable 3? - Did this vote reveal alignment or unexpected sticking points across the group? **Finished output:** A recorded numerical tally and a documented status indicating whether the proposal was accepted, amended, or blocked for further work. ## Remote Display the proposal and the 0 to 5 rubric on a shared screen. Instruct participants to type their score into the meeting chat without pressing enter. On the count of three, all participants hit enter at the exact same moment. Alternatively, use a digital poll with options 0 through 5 launched simultaneously. ## Hybrid Display the shared text and rubric in room and on screen. To ensure a simultaneous reveal across locations, have in-person participants hold hands high while remote participants submit their number into the chat on the facilitator count of three. The facilitator reads both streams aloud. ## Access and participation choices - Participants who prefer not to use hand gestures can speak their number on the count or hold up a written index card. - Anyone may choose to abstain by keeping both hands flat on the table, which counts as neutral consent to follow the group majority. ## If the session gets stuck **Participants hesitate and look around the room before raising their fingers.** Remind everyone to decide their number beforehand, keep hands down until the count of three, and raise them briskly together. **A participant with a 1 or 2 feels pressured by the room to agree.** Intervene immediately and restate that scores below 3 are valuable data that protect the project from hidden flaws. ## Terms used here - Threshold: The agreed minimum score (standardly 3 out of 5) that every member must meet for a decision to pass without further modification. ## Participant material: Fist to Five Voting Scale Reference 0 (Fist): Complete opposition. Cannot support proceeding. 1 Finger: Serious concerns. Requires substantial changes. 2 Fingers: Reservations. Not ready to move forward yet. 3 Fingers: Acceptable. Not first choice, but willing to support. 4 Fingers: Good decision. Fully supportive. 5 Fingers: Outstanding idea. Enthusiastic champion. ## Sources and adaptation Observed in WorkshopBank documentation, which notes roots in consensus-testing practices and popularization in Agile literature by Jean Tabaka (Collaboration Explained, 2006). Retained the standard 0-5 consensus framework, simultaneous voting countdown, and focus on low voters from WorkshopBank documentation. UWT structured the procedure into a crisp 10-minute five-step facilitation sequence, adding strict chat-timing rules for remote settings and clear hybrid synchronization. [WorkshopBank](https://workshopbank.com/tools/fist-to-five) Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/fist-to-five-workshopbank/